& 

;:-.a 

U.S. Department Q^^ ^ ^^ ^^^^ Q^-^^^ Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

of Transportation Washington. D.C. 20591 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

May 19,2010 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 ' S 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 - '~ 

Re: DOT Docket No. TBA, I 

FAAcaseno.2009WP910116 /C/P|O00pOOCiC> jf^Q i oUiJIi'- OS^O 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Enclosed please find a copy of Stuart S. MacPherson's request for hearing, dated May 5, 

2010, and the original and one copy of the complaint in the above-referenced proceeding. 

The Complainant requests that the hearing in this matter be held in San Diego, CA, and 

expects that the hearing will last one (1) day. 

Please address all communications for the Complainant to Laura Ponto, Attorney, 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591, (202) 267-

9863, facsimile (202) 267-5106. 

Sincerely, 

Peter Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

QjJt^CL> >^^f(A^kyp 

Ponto 

^ mey » "^ ^ 

'fice of the Chief Counsel ^0 ^10 >• V ? 

Cc: Stuart S. MacPherson " 1 r. ^ ; ? ^^, _^ ^ ^ . ^ 

P.O. Box 807 ' ''^ ^* ' ^ 

Cardiff, CA 92007 
Before the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

In the matter of 

STUART S. MACPHERSON 

Docket No. TBA 

FAA Case No. 2009WP910116 

COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 

C.F.R. § 13.208, the Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), hereby files 

its Complaint in the above-captioned matter and states the following. 

I. 

Respondent Stuart S. MacPherson (Respondent) was advised through a Final 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty dated April 30, 2010 that the FAA proposed to assess a 

civil penalty in the amount of $16,200.' By letter dated May 5, 2010, Respondent 

requested a hearing in the above-captioned matter. 

II. 

1. Stuart S. MacPherson (MacPherson) is now, and at all times mentioned in 

this document was, the holder of a Letter of Authorization issued by the FAA, 

authorizing MacPherson to conduct commercial tour operations under 14 C.F.R § 91.147, 

effective February 29, 2008 

' Mr. MacPherson responded to the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty by letter. There was a 

typographical error in the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; Mr. MacPherson's name was spelled 

McPherson. 
2. At all times mentioned in this document, 14 C.F.R. § 91.147(d) required 

that MacPherson register and implement an antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention 

program (AMPP) in accordance with part 121, Appendices I and J. 

3. At all times mentioned in this document, 14 C.F.R. Part 121, Appendix I, 

Section III, required that an employee who performs flight crewmember duties for 

MacPherson be subject to drug testing under an antidrug program implemented in 

accordance with that appendix. 

4. At all times mentioned in this document, 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix J, 

Section II, required that an employee who performs flight crewmember duties for 

MacPherson be subject to alcohol testing under an alcohol misuse prevention program 

implemented in accordance with that appendix. 

5. At all times menfioned in this document, 14 C.F.R. Part 121, Appendix I, 

Section V.A. 1 prohibited MacPherson from hiring any individual for a safety-sensitive 

function unless it had first conducted a Department of Transportation (DOT)-required 

pre-employment test and received a verified negative drug test result for that individual. 

6. On or about June 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29, 

2008 Stuart S. MacPherson performed flight crewmember duties for MacPherson under 

14 C.F.R. §91.147. 

7. Stuart S. MacPherson had not been administered a DOT-required preemployment drug test and MacPherson had not received a verified negative drug test 

result prior to June 14, 2008. 

^ Effective July 13, 2009, the FAA's drug and alcohol regulations in 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendices I and J 

were recodified and are now found in 14 C.F.R. part 120, subparts E and F. See Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 

22649 (May 14, 2009). The Final Rule is also available at the following internet address: 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office org/headquarters offlces/avs/ofFices/aam/drug alcohol/testing/ 
8. At all times mentioned in this document, 14 C.F.R. Part 121, Appendix I, 

Section V.B.5, required MacPherson to conduct DOT-required random drug testing of 

each person performing a safety-sensitive function by a process that ensured each 

covered employee had an equal chance of being tested each time random selections for 

drug testing were made. 

9. At all times mentioned in this document, 14 C.F.R. Part 121 Appendix J, 

Section III.C.5, required MacPherson to conduct DOT-required random alcohol testing of 

covered employees in a maimer that ensured each covered employee had an equal chance 

of being tested each time random selecfions for alcohol testing were made. 

10. Stuart S. MacPherson was not subject to DOT-required random drug and 

alcohol testing from the time be began flight crewmember duties for MacPherson on 

June 14, 2008 to July 19, 2008. 

11. Because MacPherson was not included in a DOT-required random drug 

and alcohol testing pool from June 14, 2008 to July 19, 2008, he had no chance of being 

selected for random drug and alcohol testing pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 121, Appendices 

I and J. 

12. At all times mentioned in this document, 14 C.F.R. § 91.147(e) required 

that MacPherson comply with the provisions of its Letter of Authorization, which among 

other things, required that MacPherson ensure its contractors who performed safetysensitive work for MacPherson were subject to testing under an antidrug program and 

AMPP. 
13. At all times mentioned in this document, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 121, 

Appendix I, Section III, and Appendix J, Section II, an individual performing 

maintenance or preventive maintenance is performing a safety-sensitive function. 

14 At all times mentioned in this docimient, 14 C.F.R. Part 121, Appendix I, 

Section III, and Appendix J, Section II, required MacPherson to subject each person 

hired, directly or by contract, to perform aircraft maintenance or preventive maintenance 

duties, to testing for prohibited drug use and alcohol misuse in accordance with those 

appendices. 

15. On or about May 22, 2008 and July 21, 2008, John Twiss of Twiss Air 

Service performed aircraft maintenance or preventive maintenance functions for 

MacPherson. 

16. At the time MacPherson hired Twiss to perform aircraft maintenance and 

preventive maintenance for MacPherson, Twiss did not have and was not included in an 

FAA-mandated antidrug program and AMPP. 

17. MacPherson failed to ensure that its contractors who performed safetysensitive functions were subject to testing under an FAA-mandated antidrug program and 

AMPP. 

18. By reason of the foregoing, MacPherson violated the following FAA 

regulations: 

(a) 14 C.F.R. § 91.147(d), in that MacPherson failed to subject two 

individuals who performed safety-sensitive functions, directly or by contract, for 

MacPherson to drug and alcohol testing in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 121, 

Appendices I and J. 
(b) 14 C.F.R. Part 121, Appendix I, Section V.B.5, in that MacPherson failed 

to conduct DOT-required random drug testing of each person performing a safetysensitive function by a process that ensured each covered employee had an equal 

chance of being tested each time random selections for drug testing were made. 

(c) 14 C.F.R. Part 121 Appendix J, Section III.C.5, in that MacPherson failed 

to conduct DOT-required random alcohol testing of covered employees in a 

manner that ensured each covered employee had an equal chance of being tested 

each time random selections for alcohol testing were made. 

(d) 14 C.F.R. Part 121, Appendix I, Section V.A.I in that MacPherson hired 

an individual for a safety-sensitive function without having first conducted a 

DOT-required pre-employment test and received verified negative drug test result 

for that individual. 

(e) 14 C.F.R. § 91.147(e), in that MacPherson failed to comply with the 

provisions of its Letter of Authorization requiring that it ensure its contractors 

who perform safety-sensitive fimctions are subject to testing under an antidrug 

program and AMPP. 

III. 

1. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A), Respondent is subject to a civil 

for each of the violations alleged. The maximum civil per violation is $11,000. 

2. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $16,200 

is appropriate. 
WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Administrative Law 

Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of 

$16,200. 

Respectfiilly submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

QAMPC P-/ ^ 

aura Ponto 

Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: May 19,2010 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified return-receipt, a copy of the Complaint in the case of In the Matter of Stuart S. 

MacPherson., FAA Case no. 2009WP910116, addressed to: 

Stuart S. MacPherson 

P.O. Box 807 

Cardiff, CA 92007 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified return-receipt, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

\l,^i^4J^^ ^cWi ^ 

Dated: May 19, 2010 
Stuart S. MacPherson 

P.O. Box 807 

Cardiff, Calif. 92007 

May 5,2010 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Dear Sir, 

I am in receipt of a final notice of proposed civil penalty for Case no. 2009WP910116, 

dated April 30,2010. In accordance with 14 C.F.R. 13.161 am submitting this written 

request for a hearing, 

My contact information follows: 

Mailing address: P.O. Box 807 

Cardiff, Calif. 92007 

Phone Number; 760-632-6624 

Email: mac379m(a)gmail.com 

Cc: Laura Ponto, Attorney 

z\ --i i; 

"AIG ; 

13?: 

21'.^